You know, if gun control advocates knew how to use statistics I would actually be more open to their side, they need to know how to measure the effects gun control. Something they have failed to do. Lets look at the most common gun control mistakes.

a) Comparing countries

This is the most common failure that gun control advocates cite, they claim because crime in the UK, for example, is lower than in the US it is proof that gun control works. If it is put into a form of a study, it is referred to cross sectional studies. In this case cross sectional evidence. And its exactly that, comparing crime rates between countries at any one given time. Using this data falsely assumes gun control works. Economists call this the "endogenity" problem. In other words, it is likely in results of a problem gun control was passed, and it was not gun control that eradicated the problem. A good example of the endogenity being used, other then in the gun control debate, is the death penalty. Politicians and journalists cite evidence that in states with no DP have lower crime rates, and therefore the DP increases crime. But those states before these laws enjoyed lower crime rates then the states with the death penalty. To make a valid argument one must look into the rate change overtime while attempting to account for other factors.[1]

Engogenity is looked as the fallacy of statistics.

b) Before and after averages

This is less of a problem in the world of the internet debating and war over information, but it is commonly used by proponents of gun control (John Donahue uses them frequently when he debates John Lott). John Lott, however, can destroy these arguments easily.

Using before and after averages can do two things, 1) Amplify something so it looks like it had an effect when it didn't, and 2) Make it look like laws have an effect when they actually do. It basically amplifies or underestimates effects, which is bad when trying to gain well thought out opinions on the subject. If pre-law decline and a pre-law increase trends where about the same (decrease 1% before law, increase 1% after law) the trend is about the same, a 0% difference. But if you look at the facts, we see a whole trend change hinting it likely had an effect. However, if the pre law decline in crime was minus 30%, and after the law had an increase in 5%, this way of calculation would make it look like the law still decreased crime.[1]

[--How to really measure effects--]

How do you measure them? Its a hard thing to calculate, it really is. And gun control advocates always fail in doing it. So lets make a scenario.

Over the last decade crime rates have been falling, and in that time two factors could account for the drop. Lets say... Gun control and increase in death penalty usage. But based in this scenario it is impossible to tell which scenario explained the drop, or whether both played a role. So the best way to determine gun controls effect on crime is a mix of endogenity and before and after. Extend the before/after for a long length in time, while compare its crime rate relative to a neighbor state/region that has a similar socio-economic outlook as well as many other similar factors, use many regressions to account for other variables, and use panel data technique to make a 50-50 coin much more precise in predicting somethings effect.

Only one side has been able to use the right type of statistical information, and that is the side of guns reduce crime.

2. Safe Storage laws. Lock them up?

Using the correct data techniques, Lott looks into his data not knowing what to expect. He found if the safe storage law was never passed, crime would be a natural curve and crime per 100,000 people would be a little over 400 people. If the law was never passed, though, crime would unnaturally increase too over 600.

Safe storage laws have no effect on accidental gun deaths or on total suicide rates. While there is extremely weak evidence it has small effects on juvenile gun deaths, it does not affect the overall rate. Most suicidal people just substitute to other methods. The only consistent and moderately strong data is its effect on rape, robbery, and Burglary. Conservative estimates show an increase in 3,738 more rapes, 21,000 more robberies, and 49,733 more burglaries when these laws are passed. The estimates on murder are weaker, but are still existent and considered a moderate range, an increase of 309 murders.[1]

3. Assault weapons ban & Gun Show loophole

Apollo.11 is the only one I have conversed with on this subject, but now I have the evidence in my hand.

Although there is a large campaign to end the loophole and ban assault weapons, there is no evidence either of these controls lower crime. Indeed, if there is any effect assault weapons band seem to increase robbery and murder rates to large extents. Further, closing the gun show loophole seems to increase crime across the board.

- "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."[3]

- " Ten years ago this month, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharpbreak from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public.Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now, 10years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today overconcealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate."[4]

===NOTE===

If you want me to post an analysis of data [on this forum] from Europe and Jamaican gun bans I can do that too.

I don't see how an assault weapons ban has negative implications. What is going to happen without the ban that is beneficial? The father uses his chain gun to eradicate someone who stole a pie from their kitchen (it happens)?

At least you don't use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. That just plain sucks.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/22/2012 9:35:48 PM, Contra wrote:I don't see how an assault weapons ban has negative implications. What is going to happen without the ban that is beneficial? The father uses his chain gun to eradicate someone who stole a pie from their kitchen (it happens)?

At least you don't use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. That just plain sucks.

At 7/22/2012 9:35:48 PM, Contra wrote:I don't see how an assault weapons ban has negative implications. What is going to happen without the ban that is beneficial? The father uses his chain gun to eradicate someone who stole a pie from their kitchen (it happens)?

At least you don't use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. That just plain sucks.

Good video. I will assume that we agree that the bolded statement is just crap then.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/22/2012 9:35:48 PM, Contra wrote:I don't see how an assault weapons ban has negative implications. What is going to happen without the ban that is beneficial? The father uses his chain gun to eradicate someone who stole a pie from their kitchen (it happens)?

At least you don't use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. That just plain sucks.

The reason it has negative implications is because it's the best weapon fit self defense. A ban, therefore, lowers the chance a victim can protect himself.

At 7/22/2012 9:35:48 PM, Contra wrote:I don't see how an assault weapons ban has negative implications. What is going to happen without the ban that is beneficial? The father uses his chain gun to eradicate someone who stole a pie from their kitchen (it happens)?

At least you don't use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. That just plain sucks.

So to show the effect assault weapons bans had on crime, this Lott fellow used crime statistics consisting of ALL types of guns? And this given you spend the first half of the OP asking about how to NOT compare effects. Add this to the list.

At 7/22/2012 10:56:03 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:So to show the effect assault weapons bans had on crime, this Lott fellow used crime statistics consisting of ALL types of guns? And this given you spend the first half of the OP asking about how to NOT compare effects. Add this to the list.

No, he used crime rates overall then added an assault weapons data set with multiple proxies and regressions.

He compared trends, then used regressions while comparing accross states (Cali -> Oregon for example). Using regressions avoids the endogenity problem.

At 7/22/2012 10:56:03 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:So to show the effect assault weapons bans had on crime, this Lott fellow used crime statistics consisting of ALL types of guns? And this given you spend the first half of the OP asking about how to NOT compare effects. Add this to the list.

No, he used crime rates overall then added an assault weapons data set with multiple proxies and regressions.

He compared trends, then used regressions while comparing accross states (Cali -> Oregon for example). Using regressions avoids the endogenity problem.

First, anyone noticed that there is no such thing as the "endogenity" problem. Perhaps he meant the "endogeneity problem."

A quick search of this finds us this, "The endogeneity problem is particularly relevant in the context of time series analysis of causal processes. It is common for some factors within a causal system to be dependent for their value in period t on the values of other factors in the causal system in period t-1. Suppose that the level of pest infestation is independent of all other factors within a given period, but is influenced by the level of rainfall and fertilizer in the preceding period. In this instance it would be correct to say that infestation is exogenous within the period, but endogenous over time."

"Broadly, a loop of causality between the independent and dependent variables of a model leads to endogeneity." What 16K is pointing out is not this issue, but that things are done because a problem exists, not that those things caused the problem.

He points to the DP as an example. States with higher murder rates may choose the DP because of those higher rates. That cannot be assumed that the DP caused the higher rates. However, his application of this to gun control is backwards. It would only apply if gun restriction was shown to be present in places with more crime (then one could argue that the crime is the reason for the gun control, not vise versa). However, comparing developed nations, we see the opposite is true, so you cannot claim the same error as with the DP.

Mostly, when people compare various nations they point out that there are far too many variables to conclude that any single variable is responsible (this is a legitimate defense), however, we can look, not just at a single other country but nearly every other developed nation. The more nations that are looked at, the less likely it is some other variable.

Second, 16K says, "Before and after averages. This is less of a problem in the world of the internet debating and war over information, but it is commonly used..."

Then goes on to say (well, quote from a source), "Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate."

You can't say "before and after" is not legitimate, then go point to an "after" and say "see!!"

The best way would be to look at the trends and consider any and every variable that could have an effect. Let's look at the following graph.

There is a sudden change in direction in the early to mid 90's. What are the various variables that could have caused and consider each one. It should also be considered that the things that change it could have started a few years before, or that the first years of change could have been coincidence and the thing that changed the long term trend happened a year or two after.

At 7/23/2012 1:44:18 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:So much of this is false, it is kinda funny.

I know, right?

Mostly, when people compare various nations they point out that there are far too many variables to conclude that any single variable is responsible (this is a legitimate defense), however, we can look, not just at a single other country but nearly every other developed nation. The more nations that are looked at, the less likely it is some other variable.

The Fool: First of all isn't it ridiculasly niave to think that murder is the only gun crime. They are use to rob and to threaten, and I am sure alot more then that.

Even besides all the information, there is a logical asymetric relationship here. IF you ban guns, there is only Good over all potential. If it has no benifit well you save money, an decrease potential negatives. Moreover all information says its better to lose them, even if you only consider it a small. It goes only in one direction. But there is Zero data says its better to keep them. Something is better then nothing.So from what little I know it appeares to be decisive. I live in Canada and I know I would feel much less comfortable, knowing there was all these Guns around.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/22/2012 10:56:03 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:So to show the effect assault weapons bans had on crime, this Lott fellow used crime statistics consisting of ALL types of guns? And this given you spend the first half of the OP asking about how to NOT compare effects. Add this to the list.

No, he used crime rates overall then added an assault weapons data set with multiple proxies and regressions.

He compared trends, then used regressions while comparing accross states (Cali -> Oregon for example). Using regressions avoids the endogenity problem.

At 7/22/2012 12:55:39 AM, 16kadams wrote:1. How to properly measure effect on gun control

You know, if gun control advocates knew how to use statistics I would actually be more open to their side, they need to know how to measure the effects gun control. Something they have failed to do. Lets look at the most common gun control mistakes.

a) Comparing countries

This is the most common failure that gun control advocates cite, they claim because crime in the UK, for example, is lower than in the US it is proof that gun control works. If it is put into a form of a study, it is referred to cross sectional studies. In this case cross sectional evidence. And its exactly that, comparing crime rates between countries at any one given time. Using this data falsely assumes gun control works. Economists call this the "endogenity" problem. In other words, it is likely in results of a problem gun control was passed, and it was not gun control that eradicated the problem. A good example of the endogenity being used, other then in the gun control debate, is the death penalty. Politicians and journalists cite evidence that in states with no DP have lower crime rates, and therefore the DP increases crime. But those states before these laws enjoyed lower crime rates then the states with the death penalty. To make a valid argument one must look into the rate change overtime while attempting to account for other factors.[1]

Engogenity is looked as the fallacy of statistics.

b) Before and after averages

This is less of a problem in the world of the internet debating and war over information, but it is commonly used by proponents of gun control (John Donahue uses them frequently when he debates John Lott). John Lott, however, can destroy these arguments easily.

Using before and after averages can do two things, 1) Amplify something so it looks like it had an effect when it didn't, and 2) Make it look like laws have an effect when they actually do. It basically amplifies or underestimates effects, which is bad when trying to gain well thought out opinions on the subject. If pre-law decline and a pre-law increase trends where about the same (decrease 1% before law, increase 1% after law) the trend is about the same, a 0% difference. But if you look at the facts, we see a whole trend change hinting it likely had an effect. However, if the pre law decline in crime was minus 30%, and after the law had an increase in 5%, this way of calculation would make it look like the law still decreased crime.[1]

[--How to really measure effects--]

How do you measure them? Its a hard thing to calculate, it really is. And gun control advocates always fail in doing it. So lets make a scenario.

Over the last decade crime rates have been falling, and in that time two factors could account for the drop. Lets say... Gun control and increase in death penalty usage. But based in this scenario it is impossible to tell which scenario explained the drop, or whether both played a role. So the best way to determine gun controls effect on crime is a mix of endogenity and before and after. Extend the before/after for a long length in time, while compare its crime rate relative to a neighbor state/region that has a similar socio-economic outlook as well as many other similar factors, use many regressions to account for other variables, and use panel data technique to make a 50-50 coin much more precise in predicting somethings effect.

Only one side has been able to use the right type of statistical information, and that is the side of guns reduce crime.

2. Safe Storage laws. Lock them up?

Using the correct data techniques, Lott looks into his data not knowing what to expect. He found if the safe storage law was never passed, crime would be a natural curve and crime per 100,000 people would be a little over 400 people. If the law was never passed, though, crime would unnaturally increase too over 600.

Safe storage laws have no effect on accidental gun deaths or on total suicide rates. While there is extremely weak evidence it has small effects on juvenile gun deaths, it does not affect the overall rate. Most suicidal people just substitute to other methods. The only consistent and moderately strong data is its effect on rape, robbery, and Burglary. Conservative estimates show an increase in 3,738 more rapes, 21,000 more robberies, and 49,733 more burglaries when these laws are passed. The estimates on murder are weaker, but are still existent and considered a moderate range, an increase of 309 murders.[1]

3. Assault weapons ban & Gun Show loophole

Apollo.11 is the only one I have conversed with on this subject, but now I have the evidence in my hand.

Although there is a large campaign to end the loophole and ban assault weapons, there is no evidence either of these controls lower crime. Indeed, if there is any effect assault weapons band seem to increase robbery and murder rates to large extents. Further, closing the gun show loophole seems to increase crime across the board.

- "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."[3]

- " Ten years ago this month, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharpbreak from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public.Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now, 10years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today overconcealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate."[4]

===NOTE===

If you want me to post an analysis of data [on this forum] from Europe and Jamaican gun bans I can do that too.

At 7/23/2012 5:11:32 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:The Fool: First of all isn't it ridiculasly niave to think that murder is the only gun crime. They are use to rob and to threaten, and I am sure alot more then that.

Even besides all the information, there is a logical asymetric relationship here. IF you ban guns, there is only Good over all potential. If it has no benifit well you save money, an decrease potential negatives. Moreover all information says its better to lose them, even if you only consider it a small. It goes only in one direction. But there is Zero data says its better to keep them. Something is better then nothing.So from what little I know it appeares to be decisive. I live in Canada and I know I would feel much less comfortable, knowing there was all these Guns around.

At 7/23/2012 1:44:18 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:So much of this is false, it is kinda funny.

First, anyone noticed that there is no such thing as the "endogenity" problem. Perhaps he meant the "endogeneity problem."

A quick search of this finds us this, "The endogeneity problem is particularly relevant in the context of time series analysis of causal processes. It is common for some factors within a causal system to be dependent for their value in period t on the values of other factors in the causal system in period t-1. Suppose that the level of pest infestation is independent of all other factors within a given period, but is influenced by the level of rainfall and fertilizer in the preceding period. In this instance it would be correct to say that infestation is exogenous within the period, but endogenous over time."

"Broadly, a loop of causality between the independent and dependent variables of a model leads to endogeneity." What 16K is pointing out is not this issue, but that things are done because a problem exists, not that those things caused the problem.

He points to the DP as an example. States with higher murder rates may choose the DP because of those higher rates. That cannot be assumed that the DP caused the higher rates. However, his application of this to gun control is backwards. It would only apply if gun restriction was shown to be present in places with more crime (then one could argue that the crime is the reason for the gun control, not vise versa). However, comparing developed nations, we see the opposite is true, so you cannot claim the same error as with the DP.

Yes, it's assuming gun ownership increases in times of high crime.

Mostly, when people compare various nations they point out that there are far too many variables to conclude that any single variable is responsible (this is a legitimate defense), however, we can look, not just at a single other country but nearly every other developed nation. The more nations that are looked at, the less likely it is some other variable.

Not really, as the US and Europe have many different factors when attempting to compare crime. As does Asia or Australia.

Second, 16K says, "Before and after averages. This is less of a problem in the world of the internet debating and war over information, but it is commonly used..."

Then goes on to say (well, quote from a source), "Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate."

You can't say "before and after" is not legitimate, then go point to an "after" and say "see!!"

I am saying using ONLY before and after is faulty. Using states with similar crime rates, comparing, using before and after, then examining tends are all taken into account with these studies. They also use large amounts of regression(s).

The best way would be to look at the trends and consider any and every variable that could have an effect. Let's look at the following graph.

There is a sudden change in direction in the early to mid 90's. What are the various variables that could have caused and consider each one. It should also be considered that the things that change it could have started a few years before, or that the first years of change could have been coincidence and the thing that changed the long term trend happened a year or two after.

And every study on that says the assault weapobs ban was not responsible for the drop.

Speaking of funny, are you still trying to say that the reduction in gun homicide rates was due to the assault weapon ban?

I'm fairly certain that I completely debunked that idea not very long ago.

I'll ask again, was the assault weapon ban also responsible for the decrease in the knife homicide rate that occurred during the same time period?

Lol Ore, come on.

It's also interesting that it forgets to add the Crime Control Act of 1990:

"Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts."

Speaking of funny, are you still trying to say that the reduction in gun homicide rates was due to the assault weapon ban?

I'm fairly certain that I completely debunked that idea not very long ago.

I'll ask again, was the assault weapon ban also responsible for the decrease in the knife homicide rate that occurred during the same time period?

Lol Ore, come on.

It's also interesting that it forgets to add the Crime Control Act of 1990:

"Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts."

Also interesting that knife homicide rates dropped more over that time period than gun homicide rates. Certainly gun laws were responsible for the reduction in knife, blunt-object, and unarmed homicide rates.

Speaking of funny, are you still trying to say that the reduction in gun homicide rates was due to the assault weapon ban?

I'm fairly certain that I completely debunked that idea not very long ago.

I'll ask again, was the assault weapon ban also responsible for the decrease in the knife homicide rate that occurred during the same time period?

Lol Ore, come on.

It's also interesting that it forgets to add the Crime Control Act of 1990:

"Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts."

Also interesting that knife homicide rates dropped more over that time period than gun homicide rates. Certainly gun laws were responsible for the reduction in knife, blunt-object, and unarmed homicide rates.

Speaking of funny, are you still trying to say that the reduction in gun homicide rates was due to the assault weapon ban?

I'm fairly certain that I completely debunked that idea not very long ago.

I'll ask again, was the assault weapon ban also responsible for the decrease in the knife homicide rate that occurred during the same time period?

Lol Ore, come on.

It's also interesting that it forgets to add the Crime Control Act of 1990:

"Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts."

Also interesting that knife homicide rates dropped more over that time period than gun homicide rates. Certainly gun laws were responsible for the reduction in knife, blunt-object, and unarmed homicide rates.

As he never added regressions it was likely a crime cycle.

Also note RTC laws where passed

I'm still fairly certain it was the release of DOOM which caused people to stop killing each other so much. Seriously, I still have a computer with that game installed.

The progressive approach that a certain genre of firearms should be banned entirely is stupid.

Equally.

The conservative approach that everyone should be armed 24/7 and weapons should be as easily bought as booze at the 7/11 is stupid.

The reason why we have a gun problem in the United States is because we allow easy access of weapons to those with mental illnesses. The sensible approach would be that gun owners would need psychological evaluation which is as simple as a visiting a psychologists every 6 months to 1 year, or however often one does their yearly doctor checkups. Another problem arises due to Nixon's drug war has created a criminal culture that requires firearms for its black market operations.

In European countries that I have visited, I have noticed that there is more of a concern for the individual's mental health in contrasts to the United States, where here people are almost oblivious to it (with the remedy here being spiced rum before bed.) In said countries I've visited, there were also more lax on drug policy and the result was a lower presence of the black market (with the exception of Southern Paris, tons of coke dealers.) The only thing I saw being peddled were prostitutes and cigarettes.

I have no qualms with my neighbor owning a semi-automatic rifle with a 30rd, hell, even a 100rd magazine; as long as he is mentally healthy and has a clean criminal record.

At 7/23/2012 9:03:41 PM, Aaronroy wrote:I'm going to clear a few things up.

The progressive approach that a certain genre of firearms should be banned entirely is stupid.

Equally.

The conservative approach that everyone should be armed 24/7 and weapons should be as easily bought as booze at the 7/11 is stupid.

The reason why we have a gun problem in the United States is because we allow easy access of weapons to those with mental illnesses. The sensible approach would be that gun owners would need psychological evaluation which is as simple as a visiting a psychologists every 6 months to 1 year, or however often one does their yearly doctor checkups. Another problem arises due to Nixon's drug war has created a criminal culture that requires firearms for its black market operations.

In European countries that I have visited, I have noticed that there is more of a concern for the individual's mental health in contrasts to the United States, where here people are almost oblivious to it (with the remedy here being spiced rum before bed.) In said countries I've visited, there were also more lax on drug policy and the result was a lower presence of the black market (with the exception of Southern Paris, tons of coke dealers.) The only thing I saw being peddled were prostitutes and cigarettes.

I have no qualms with my neighbor owning a semi-automatic rifle with a 30rd, hell, even a 100rd magazine; as long as he is mentally healthy and has a clean criminal record.

On a federal level it's unconstitutional, so we must look at this from a states perspective.

Now on a state level it's unlikely to lower crimes as most criminals obtain guns illegally or through legal means with no criminal record. Also many mental problems are unobservable and cannot be detected. Most backround check laws have been inneffective, most of the "700,000" number on the Brady law is misleading as it counts the people that where incorrectly counted and a second check conducted made many go clear. And no studies show backround checks lower crime. Some evidence shows it may deter gun ownership and, therefore, increase crime.

The crazy check may also be inneffective as many crazy people are high functioning, married, and well off. It's hard to tell if there is a problem unless they are in the act of a crime. 16% of criminals are mentally ill (http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...) But we can assume many can hide it, others will get black market guns as they where previously convicted, etc. we can assume this will likely have little effect on overall violence.

Although I think backroubd checks would fail (mandating them, anyway), the mental ill idea may work, though unlikely. I will look into it.

===Overal Source===

Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003.

At 7/23/2012 9:03:41 PM, Aaronroy wrote:I'm going to clear a few things up.

The progressive approach that a certain genre of firearms should be banned entirely is stupid.

Equally.

The conservative approach that everyone should be armed 24/7 and weapons should be as easily bought as booze at the 7/11 is stupid.

The reason why we have a gun problem in the United States is because we allow easy access of weapons to those with mental illnesses. The sensible approach would be that gun owners would need psychological evaluation which is as simple as a visiting a psychologists every 6 months to 1 year, or however often one does their yearly doctor checkups. Another problem arises due to Nixon's drug war has created a criminal culture that requires firearms for its black market operations.

In European countries that I have visited, I have noticed that there is more of a concern for the individual's mental health in contrasts to the United States, where here people are almost oblivious to it (with the remedy here being spiced rum before bed.) In said countries I've visited, there were also more lax on drug policy and the result was a lower presence of the black market (with the exception of Southern Paris, tons of coke dealers.) The only thing I saw being peddled were prostitutes and cigarettes.

I have no qualms with my neighbor owning a semi-automatic rifle with a 30rd, hell, even a 100rd magazine; as long as he is mentally healthy and has a clean criminal record.

On a federal level it's unconstitutional, so we must look at this from a states perspective.

Now on a state level it's unlikely to lower crimes as most criminals obtain guns illegally or through legal means with no criminal record. Also many mental problems are unobservable and cannot be detected. Most backround check laws have been inneffective, most of the "700,000" number on the Brady law is misleading as it counts the people that where incorrectly counted and a second check conducted made many go clear. And no studies show backround checks lower crime. Some evidence shows it may deter gun ownership and, therefore, increase crime.

Switzerland has strong background checks and gun registration before getting a gun. Same with Israel. They are smart gun safety measures.

The crazy check may also be inneffective as many crazy people are high functioning, married, and well off. It's hard to tell if there is a problem unless they are in the act of a crime. 16% of criminals are mentally ill

Which itself is a good reason why we should have universal health care — so that they can get the care they need.

Crime is caused primarily by poverty. Broad prosperity is thus an imperative that reduces crime.

(http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...) But we can assume many can hide it, others will get black market guns as they where previously convicted, etc. we can assume this will likely have little effect on overall violence.

Although I think backroubd checks would fail (mandating them, anyway), the mental ill idea may work, though unlikely. I will look into it.

===Overal Source===

Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/23/2012 9:03:41 PM, Aaronroy wrote:I'm going to clear a few things up.

The progressive approach that a certain genre of firearms should be banned entirely is stupid.

Equally.

The conservative approach that everyone should be armed 24/7 and weapons should be as easily bought as booze at the 7/11 is stupid.

The reason why we have a gun problem in the United States is because we allow easy access of weapons to those with mental illnesses. The sensible approach would be that gun owners would need psychological evaluation which is as simple as a visiting a psychologists every 6 months to 1 year, or however often one does their yearly doctor checkups. Another problem arises due to Nixon's drug war has created a criminal culture that requires firearms for its black market operations.

In European countries that I have visited, I have noticed that there is more of a concern for the individual's mental health in contrasts to the United States, where here people are almost oblivious to it (with the remedy here being spiced rum before bed.) In said countries I've visited, there were also more lax on drug policy and the result was a lower presence of the black market (with the exception of Southern Paris, tons of coke dealers.) The only thing I saw being peddled were prostitutes and cigarettes.

I have no qualms with my neighbor owning a semi-automatic rifle with a 30rd, hell, even a 100rd magazine; as long as he is mentally healthy and has a clean criminal record.

On a federal level it's unconstitutional, so we must look at this from a states perspective.

Now on a state level it's unlikely to lower crimes as most criminals obtain guns illegally or through legal means with no criminal record. Also many mental problems are unobservable and cannot be detected. Most backround check laws have been inneffective, most of the "700,000" number on the Brady law is misleading as it counts the people that where incorrectly counted and a second check conducted made many go clear. And no studies show backround checks lower crime. Some evidence shows it may deter gun ownership and, therefore, increase crime.

Switzerland has strong background checks and gun registration before getting a gun. Same with Israel. They are smart gun safety measures.

Again comparing countries is not good when looking at statistics. Facts show backround checks increase crime. There's nothing "smart" about it. It has been shown to restrict civilian access and lower the probability of deterrence.

The crazy check may also be inneffective as many crazy people are high functioning, married, and well off. It's hard to tell if there is a problem unless they are in the act of a crime. 16% of criminals are mentally ill

Which itself is a good reason why we should have universal health care — so that they can get the care they need.

Crime is caused primarily by poverty. Broad prosperity is thus an imperative that reduces crime.

Irrelevant

(http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...) But we can assume many can hide it, others will get black market guns as they where previously convicted, etc. we can assume this will likely have little effect on overall violence.

Although I think backroubd checks would fail (mandating them, anyway), the mental ill idea may work, though unlikely. I will look into it.

===Overal Source===

Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003.